Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

[signelect]

I have been called for jury duty twice but as soon as the lawyer's realize that you might actually be capable of thinking for our self and will not take what they say as truth and actually make them prove the facts they use, they kick you off. They do not want thinkers.

 

[Liability]

I have been called for jury duty twice but as soon as the lawyer's realize that you might actually be capable of thinking for our self and will not take what they say as truth and actually make them prove the facts they use, they kick you off. They do not want thinkers.

Actually, the truth is that sometimes the lawyers on a case very much DO want people capable of elevated thinking and independent thought.

Depends on the "needs" of the case.

If a client SEEMS to be pretty plainly "guilty," but the "guilt" requires some element that is actually not there at all or very tenuous, then why the hell would his lawyer want anybody on the jury who is not able to make such fine distinctions? Some "defenses" require a bit of nuance, and in those cases, it's nice to have a bunch of intelligent, reasonable jurors.

 

[George Costanza]

I have been called for jury duty twice but as soon as the lawyer's realize that you might actually be capable of thinking for our self and will not take what they say as truth and actually make them prove the facts they use, they kick you off. They do not want thinkers.

Actually, the truth is that sometimes the lawyers on a case very much DO want people capable of elevated thinking and independent thought.

Depends on the "needs" of the case.

If a client SEEMS to be pretty plainly "guilty," but the "guilt" requires some element that is actually not there at all or very tenuous, then why the hell would his lawyer want anybody on the jury who is not able to make such fine distinctions? Some "defenses" require a bit of nuance, and in those cases, it's nice to have a bunch of intelligent, reasonable jurors.

Absolutely. Each case is different, and calls for different types of jurors as appropriate. There are cases where the best thing to do is waive jury and try it in front of a judge, provided you know your judge's propensities fairly well. There are cases that call for unthinking jurors and those that call for extremely intelligent jurors.

 

[MikeK]

The courts have managed over the years to impose rules which seek to nullify a jury's right to nullify. But the thing to consider here is the fact that most criminal trials involve offenses and offenders which and who do not inspire the wish to nullify obvious guilt. So the motivation to nullify is far less common than the thrust of this thread suggests.

If I were a juror in the trial of a person who was charged with growing marijuana and the evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable I would assert my intention to vote not guilty and I would do my best to impart my motivation to the other jurors without actually specifiying my intention to "nullify."

If I could not indirectly and implicitly convince the others to do the same I would settle for hanging the jury. And if the judge attempted to pigeonhole me as to my interpretation of the facts in the case I would begin by asking his honor why, if the facts in the case are so cut and dried, they need a jury. And if he chose to pursue the matter I would lead him on a roundabout that would rival the greatest fox hunt in the history of the British Empire -- the bottom line of which is the simple fact that my reasoning does not square with his and let him try to prove it does.

The bottom line is Nullification is a viable possibility. There needs to be a good reason to do it and it must be done cleverly and discreetly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree completely with MikeK. If the Rule of Law becomes obscene, a citizen must stand up.

 

[George Costanza]

The courts have managed over the years to impose rules which seek to nullify a jury's right to nullify. But the thing to consider here is the fact that most criminal trials involve offenses and offenders which and who do not inspire the wish to nullify obvious guilt. So the motivation to nullify is far less common than the thrust of this thread suggests.

If I were a juror in the trial of a person who was charged with growing marijuana and the evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable I would assert my intention to vote not guilty and I would do my best to impart my motivation to the other jurors without actually specifiying my intention to "nullify."

If I could not indirectly and implicitly convince the others to do the same I would settle for hanging the jury. And if the judge attempted to pigeonhole me as to my interpretation of the facts in the case I would begin by asking his honor why, if the facts in the case are so cut and dried, they need a jury. And if he chose to pursue the matter I would lead him on a roundabout that would rival the greatest fox hunt in the history of the British Empire -- the bottom line of which is the simple fact that my reasoning does not square with his and let him try to prove it does.

The bottom line is Nullification is a viable possibility. There needs to be a good reason to do it and it must be done cleverly and discreetly.

This is the closest I have seen yet to a workable and proper definition of jury nullification. Yes, it's illegal. Yes, if they know you are going to do it, they won't let you on the jury. If, during deliberations, another juror suspects that this is what you are doing and they rat you out to the judge, you will be kicked off the jury.

But if, in your heart of hearts, you want to do it, you can do it - just don't let anyone know you are doing it.

The odds of all twelve jurors doing something like that are infinitesimal. Trust me - they are. However, as Mike says - it only take one juror to HANG the jury.

Edit note: One comment on the opening sentence in Mike's post here. I don't think a jury (or an individual juror) has the right to nullify. They have the power to nullify, but that is not the same thing as having a right to do so.

 

[Ravi]

The problem with your scenario is that someone could apply the same line of reasoning in a murder trial where they believed that even though the murder happened it was justified in that juror's mind.

 

[Oddball]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

 

[P F Tinmore]

JURY:.Petty Juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict..
American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster 1828

 

[goldcatt]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

But if, for whatever reason, they believe the application of that law is unjust....?

That's when you start getting into the jurors' biases influencing the process.

 

[Ravi]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

Surely you jest.

 

[Ravi]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

But if, for whatever reason, they believe the application of that law is unjust....?

That's when you start getting into the jurors' biases influencing the process.

Yep...the honorable thing to do if you feel strongly that a law is wrong is to bring it up when you are being interviewed.

 

[Oddball]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

Surely you jest.

No, I don't jest.....What are you trying to say?

 

[Ravi]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

Surely you jest.

No, I don't jest.....What are you trying to say?

That you've apparently never been on jury duty.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, I have.

Have you any reason to believe that the common men and women in those jury pools aren't smart enough to know that murder, rape, robbery and fraud are wrong?

 

[Ravi]

Yes, I have.

Have you any reason to believe that the common men and women in those jury pools aren't smart enough to know that murder, rape, robbery and fraud are wrong?

Everyone has their own biases. I wouldn't doubt that some people when presented with a case of one person murdering another might feel for personal reasons that the murdered one somehow deserved it.

 

[Oddball]

Then that would be part of a plea of not guilty, on the basis self-defense or some other reason.

The idea that someone would vote to acquit on the notion that someone would somehow believe laws against murder are unjust, as a matter of course, is just plain old silly.

 

[Ravi]

No, it isn't. But you can substitute in another crime that you feel everyone agrees should be a crime. The point being, there is no hard and fast agreement on anything.

What is the point of jury nullification, anyway. It simply results in a hung jury, a mistrial, and a retrying of the case.

It would make much more sense for this guy to tell people that they should be honest about what they do and do not consider crimes when they are called for jury duty.

 

[Oddball]

Nullification wouldn't result in a hung jury if there was a unanimous verdict, which is the point of it.

 

[Ravi]

Has that ever happened?